Coming as they did from inside the sport and from someone who graced her sport, Nicole Cooke’s evidence to Westminster’s culture, media and sport committee this week deservedly drew back page headlines.

She is by no means alone in having expressed scepticism regarding the explanations offered by Bradley Wiggins and Dave Brailsford relating to the contents and manner of delivery of a package to the cyclist in 2011 and his use of TUEs (Therapeutic Use Exemptions) to permit the use of otherwise banned substances ahead of major races, but her observations carry great weight given her status as an Olympic gold medallist.

Naturally she concentrated on her own sport and its specific failings, however in the written evidence Cooke submitted it was surely no accident that she opened her account by shifting the focus onto the environment that has not so much allowed this to happen as prevented it from being properly scrutinised.

Cooke’s concerns, which can only be presumed to have had a huge bearing on her decision to retire while still in her twenties, just five years after her World Championship and Olympic road race victories, are couched in terms specific to cycling.

However they relate to a problem that is now widespread, namely what is not so much a blurring of lines between governance and promotion of sport as their complete erasure.

“I wish to present to you evidence for two problems that you may wish to consider,” she wrote.

“The first relates to the governance of a sport that receives annually significant financial support from the public purse and the fact that such funds are not distributed equitably and in a decent manner for the benefit of the whole of the target population. I summarise that as a sport run by men, for men.

“I have attempted to achieve redress on a number of occasions but have encountered a governance structure at the National Federation – British Cycling ? that is not responsible to anyone other than itself for its own actions. It has an Executive Board, but this exerts minimal control of its executive officers and is filled with a majority who approve of the mal?distribution of public funds. The oversight that should be in place via UK Sport is, at best, token.

“The second relates to how measures and schemes put in place to fight the abuse of performance enhancing drugs (PEDs) are inadequate and ineffective in planning, management and execution – the so called ‘war on PEDs’. I summarise that as the wrong people fighting the wrong war, in the wrong way, with the wrong tools. Since both of these require the support and activity of management involved in the governance of sports, at a variety of levels, there are obviously areas of mutual inclusivity in the problematic areas.”

The wrong people, fighting the wrong war, in the wrong way, with the wrong tools…

It is a broad accusation which requires considerable justification, but her determination to ensure she said what she wanted to as clearly as possible was clear from the 6000 plus words submitted in that written document and in criticising the relationships between British Cycling, UK Sport, UK Anti-Doping, she paid particular attention to the use of public money.

It often seems as if a box ticking exercise is undertaken on the part of politicians when allocating funds to sport, a sense that they know they need to be seen to provide some help to be able to have their photographs taken with the heroes of Olympic and Commonwealth Games, but that it is too frivolous a subject to be taken overly seriously in terms of scrutiny of how money is spent once it is handed over to funding bodies.

Either sport matters or it does not, however and at the highest level it is now a major business with administrators as well as participants benefiting greatly from their involvement.

How that happens is pretty much between them and the tax man when all revenue is generated commercially, through sponsorship, broadcast rights and gate receipts.

As Cooke rightly points out it is, however, quite another matter where public money is concerned and there is a major problem when, as is now the case in many instances, those seeking that funding and benefiting from it work for the same organisation as those who should be scrutinising areas such as equality or doping.

We have been very swift to condemn the modern Russians and, previously, East Europeans and Asians for ‘state sponsored’ offences, but British Cycling is by no means our only sport which relies on that state support to fund full-time professionalism.

The essence of Cooke’s question, then, is to ask ourselves whether those earning big salaries at any governing body are more motivated to help in the process of identifying issues that could be seen as damaging their brand, or have better reason to want to cover them up?

Address that and it is quickly obvious that we need to find very different ways of separating governing bodies from commercial entities.